> “Institutions will try to preserve the problem to which they are the solution.” — Clay Shirky

https://kk.org/thetechnium/the-shirky-prin/

Here is a proper news article for those who can do without a dozen pages of drivel about the CEO's hairdo, flying lessons, and underwear shopping: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/03/18/fbi_raids_cybersecu...

Whilst theregister.co.uk does get straight to the point. the newyorker article tells a very interesting story about his work in hacking P2P, working with the secret service, trying to sell his software to the FBI, GPS tracking his mates cheating wife etc.

Yeah, people on here don't seem to understand that you read the New Yorker for narrative and literary craft, not for getting information as fast as possible.

And New Yorker article submitters don't understand that the HN crowd tends to prefer the Register style, at least for providing a focal point where everyone can get up to speed quickly for a productive discussion.

> And New Yorker article submitters don't understand that the HN crowd tends to prefer the Register style

Speak for yourself, buddy.

No one is taking away the New Yorker article. OP merely shared a link that’s better for those who want a short form version.

Nothing wrong with having both. TLDRs will always be popular.

I'm speaking for the quality of discussion that happens when everyone is aware of the all the facts presented in the article, vs when everyone is mired in unproductive guesswork because they missed the critical details of the threat vector because it's wedged between a description of some boss's pursed lips and the coffee used that in that office.

Edit: And "buddy"? Really?

Alternatively, The Register article contains so little information you can't discuss much and hners create their own "facts".

Only if the debate hinges on the idiosyncratic mannerisms of the subjects of the story. I saw plenty of substantive facts in the Register article, with less filler.

Just accept that not everyone wants the same as you.

I like brevity but the first article painted a much better picture. The second one barely a dip into the most pertinent facts. This company is unknown to most and without the backstory my care level was at 0.

And yet you can’t give examples of the relevant facts that are in the NYer but not the Resgister (style of CEO’s jacket doesn’t count).

I know people have different preferences. But beliefs —about which articles lead to productive discussions — can be confused. No one is spending the hour to read this before commenting. Expecting that is a bad idea.

I didn't care about this based on the register's reporting because they are nobodies. I cared about it based on the newyorkers because they told me the whole story.

Different things are useful at different times. Today that useful thing happened to be the long form journalism rather than than the twitter form journalism.

I don't think that's true and there appears to be room for both. I read both, one is good for quickly understanding what's happening / happened and the other is a much richer and interesting story. Twitter can exist in the same universe as novels you know.

I didn't say no one should ever enjoy NYer style articles, only that the Register is better for getting everyone to the point where they can productively discuss the article. A flowery style no one will ever finish isn't as good for that.

But the Register article is from 2016, when the firm had recently been raided. The New Yorker article covers the years afterward, including how the firm managed to sell its assets to Kroll, a well-known private-eye/corporate-intel firm.

I can't speak for the average HN reader, but I honestly don't give a shit that a small cybersecurity firm I've never heard about got raided and shut down, whether it was in 2016 or 2019. I am much more interested in the story of the people who created the firm, how they managed to find success, and what led to their downfall. Such information is often not satisfactorily communicated in a news brief style.

Some people find the details interesting. Life isn't always about processing information as quickly as possible

Thats a good way to phrase it. About 1/4 way through the article I realized I wasn't anywhere close to the end.

Normally I prefer El Reg but that is dry and uninformative, whereas the New Yorker article rocks a heap of other critical information.

Most importantly they are colouring in the people and their flaws, without specifically labelling them (e.g. psycho/sociopathic is never said, but the behaviours are).

The interactions with politicians and federal entities are critical to understanding the story.

What you see as irrelevant information is all extremely relevent if you care about protecting yourself against fraud, manipulation, bad actors, etcetera.

Think about the legal and social context of this article, and you will see other facets of the reporting that are clever.

The El Reg persona:

I am a middle aged intelligent man who used to be an engineer, and now I have moved up the ranks. I work in IT for a droll company, so I can afford some toys and vacations, and a bit because I just like hardware.

I treat El Reg like a British pub, where wit is appreciated, and sometimes we talk about "the war" (our collective past), and certainly taking the piss out of ourselves and everyone else is a good laff.

I also need to know some of what El Reg writes about for work; at least they make it fun, unlike most of the rest of my job where much of the pleasure is black.

> 76-97 minutes read

indeed...

The author seems to confuse peer-to-peer file sharing networks and onion routing. The explanations in the article don't make any sense.

I didn't see any mention of onion routing. There's several references to the "Deep Web", but that's in the context of file-sharing peer-to-peer networks.

What doesn't make sense? Limewire is P2P.

My impression of the -sparse- darknet mentions is that they were independently (= not through their P2P monitoring software) looking for useful data there and manually inserting it into their datastore.

I was also a little puzzled by

> In the nineties, Microsoft pursued a canonical FUD strategy, creating phony error messages to make consumers wary of using Windows on a competitor’s operating system—a tactic that resulted in a legal settlement exceeding two hundred million dollars.

I believe that’s a reference to this code and the resulting court case:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/AARD_code

Huh. I was thinking it was something to do with MS Word or other MS apps (which I know often had cross-OS or alternate OS versions, like Mac support). But no, that is indeed about... running Windows on a non-MS OS (non-MS DOS). Back when Windows was a GUI shell around DOS. Now that is history.

What the hell did I just read? Wow.

Ahaha, the fake memoir

Cybersecurity is not security? Like Anonymous cryptocurrencies are pseudo-anonymous? https://inechain.com/blog/what-are-anonymous-cryptocurrencie...

I thought it was going to be Crowdstrike. But I suppose that hasn’t happened yet.

Whatever tech, whatever assets, whatever they have, you can do as you will, I would need to have my head in the sand to be doing business with them. Too much smoke not to be at least a little fire. Just my opinion of course!

Edit: One of those times practicality clashes with politics apparently. Can’t say anything bad about the company that failed to protect high profile clients, then used that failure to help start the Trump/Russia fiasco before quietly walking their statements back - because to be aware of that would mean supporting the bad man.

Just purchased their product as it is at the top of the EDR market. Could you explain your comment?

The logs they send to their cloud (which is just Splunk in AWS) seems pretty transparent. In fact you can pull the raw logs directly from them via S3 buckets to see exactly what data is uploaded.

When you say it's a black box what portion of the product are you referring to?

Could you maybe take your political arguments somewhere else? This isn't a political thread, and yet another debate about Russia and Crowdstrike will easily drown out any other discussion we could possibly have about this New Yorker article. Even if you don't mean it to be, this might as well be trolling.

What exactly was the failure you're talking about?

Could you elaborate on Crowdstrike?